2/01/2009

Obama's broken defense promises

Fox News notes that Obama is proposing a cut in defense spending:

The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said. . . .


But during the campaign he promised an increase in spending on defense.

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.


Or this statement:

"It's hard to see how we could spend less on the military in the near term," Richard Danzig, a former navy secretary who advises Senator Obama on national security, said. . . .

"If we're spending more than $US600 billion ($625 billion) on military kinds of activities, we probably spend less than $US40 billion ($42 billion) on these other elements of national power and that's just a disproportion that needs to be addressed," said Mr Danzig. . . . .


On Afghanistan

President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to redirect U.S. troops and resources to Afghanistan from Iraq, but he has done little so far to suggest he will significantly widen the grinding war with insurgents in Afghanistan.

On the contrary, Obama appears likely to streamline the U.S. focus with an eye to the worsening economy and the cautionary example of the Iraq war that sapped political support for President George W. Bush. . . .

Obama said he wants to add troops to turn back a resurgent Taliban, but he has not gone beyond the approximately 30,000 additional forces already under consideration by the previous administration. Those troops will nearly double the U.S. presence in Afghanistan this year, but they amount to a finger in the dike while Obama recalibrates a chaotic mishmash of military and development objectives. . . .


On Bin Laden from the Sunday Times of London:

As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."


Now the policy is

Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America." . . .

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger author said...

It is amazing that faculty at universities vote overwhelmingly Democratic. They have consistently sought to cut Defense spending, and it is through the Department of Defense that most funding occurs for science research.

2/01/2009 3:57 PM  
Blogger Ted said...

The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

2/01/2009 8:32 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home